M1128 Stryker: The 105mm Mobile Gun That Everyone Hates 

Not sure why the Army hates it. It's used as a supporting vehicle for the airborne forces and not meant to fight tanks but still can if they run into enemy armor. They don't like it because they're not being used for the role the tank was built for, light support infantry tank. Send them to Ukraine and I'm sure they'll love them but they'll be a priority target for sure

Stryker was meant to be air transported with our mobile battalions. It's a niche application. It was never meant to go against modern MBT s.

The Stryker is a living example of the old adage "If you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one"

The Army got exactly what it asked for: A a fast, mobile, light armored vehicle with a medium gun. It wasn't General Dynamic's fault that the specs produced what was essentially a modern version of the M18 Tank Destroyer. A college professor once told me, "Anything made to do everything doesn't do anything very well."

I wrote the initial operating concept for the “interim medium weight brigade” that became the Stryker brigade (after proponency was taken from the Armor center and given to the Infantry center.) The team I worked with (the Advanced Warfighting Working Group) recommended a 90mm gun for the mobile gun variant and a 25mm bushmaster turret for the scout and infantry carriers. The 90mm can take out T-72M and S tanks and has a wide variety of other munitions available for it. (We also recommended a 4 man crew for the mobile gun/MGS.) All of that was thrown away by the Infantry center which only seemed to want a bus for light infantry. But after fielding, it became obvious that some firepower was necessary. Mounting a 105 was problematic for many reasons, especially weight and trying to fit it into a C-130. The 90 turret, on the other hand, was already in production in Canada and could meet all design requirements. The real problem was cancelling the M-8 AGS, supposedly to save money. The development and fielding of the Stryker systems almost certainly cost far more than any savings from cancelling the M-8. Hopefully the new light tank, whatever we wind up calling it, will fill the requirement the M-8 and MGS/Stryker we supposed to fill. I am actually hopeful about that.

I actually love the way it looks

Reminds me of what I've read on the M-18 Hellcat WWII tank destroyer. Trying to develop a heavy hitting light weight armored vehicle will never be easy.

Maybe it mostly sucks, but can we please all agree that it *looks* fantastic? I mean, in the fashion war, this thing is a stone cold killer.

I was on the M1128 at Hood. They were maintenance queens but extremely useful in a fight. The 105 was more than capable of getting a catastrophic kill on anything we aimed at, to include modern Russian tanks. We couldn’t sit there and slug it out with them, but from a hide we had a good shot. Think of it as Mike Tyson with a glass jaw.

I think the Gun Stryker has a home, but its not with the US. Its more for nations with varying terrain and requires cost-performance options that a MBT cant serve. Japan has a similar vehicle the Type16 which serves as rapid response all-terrain anti-tank/personnel vehicle to guard its vast coastlines from a beachhead. It also does well with a mixed battalion that uses MBTs as a vanguard and follows up with an infantry div which uses the strykers as additional firepower a small calibre autocannon cant bring.

To be fair the Germans in WW II had a similar anti tank gun mounted on a half track style truck with no armor at all and it was very effective, as the old Cavalry Motto "Speed is our Camouflage". If its purpose is to Augment Airborne Troops until an Armored Brigade can get there, then yes, its a highly mobile force multiplier, but still no substitute for heavy armored formations.

One of my friends dad worked on the cooling vests, though I think his were for Abrams. It's a heavy vest, a lot like a ballistic vest, but it has copper pipes running through it that keeps ice cold water running through it from a continuous pump contained in the vehicle

The truth is that if it has to be air mobile, it's not going to get much better than that. I'm not sure what kind of mission they had in mind. Paratroopers typically size an objective behind enemy lines and dig in to hold off counter attacks until relieved by a larger land force. To that end, it seems like this would be a valuable anti- tank platform. It could be deployed in a hull down defensive position with just the gun exposed. The gun itself has a pretty small profile and could probably be easily camouflaged. As an offensive vehicle it would be of very limited usefulness against conventional tanks but virtually anything light enough to be air mobile would have the same limitation.

I like that they listed actual problems with the soft factors, like crew comfort. Hopefully the MPF will be a lot better than this, essentially a Fun Size Abrams, LOL

After 11 years in the Army: This video is literally the first time I'm seeing a 105mm on a stryker

Saw multiple rollovers of these vehicles, and the crews I talked to said they were easy to tip over and a pain to maintain. No surprise it's being phased out.

First off, the stryker is not a medium tank, second off, it mixes the role of a Light Tank and a Tank Destroyer, the light tank is not supposed to have armor, in my opinion, it is a very well equipped and has a very survivable turret compared to the T72 or T64. However, if your gunner is experienced and sees the enemy T72 for example first, it will have a deadly affect on the t72.

The logic of the US Army: Has a vehicle that has 20-30 mm of armor to protect against small arms and shrapnel Then proceeds to complain that it can’t survive a tank round

As a former Army Stryker Maintainer, these Stryker is great to look at, but it's a HUGE pain in the butts when these broke down, especially this MGS, many cable, many complex system in a such a tiny space .... !!! And this type broke down quite often , hopefully new upcoming Stryker make them more durable!!

Given the nature of war we've seen. This vehicle is probably the best tool for infantry support. Redesign to bring reliability up, better armor, make it easier to service and give it ATGM, and you have a solid gun platform.

It's air transportable, quick moving wheeled armored vehicle with MBT type of main gun, that could be used as fire support or even tank destroyer role like the fast moving M18 tank destroyer in WWII.

I am surprised there is not a variant that has an automatic mortar for indirect fire support for infantry soldiers.

I remember an airborne tank unit with the M551 Sheridan's when I was at Ft. Bragg in the mid 1980's. I can still see those tanks coming in on the heavy drop on Sicily drop zone.

Stryker has a number of variants. The 105 variant is accompanied by one that fields a 25mm Bushmaster main gun (like that on the M2A2 Bradley IFV), Mortar Variant, an Field Artillery Variant (Fire Direction and Control), and on Air Defense Artillery variant (in use with America's Marine Corps , I believe) similar to the Tested but never procured ADATS. Like it's sister vehicle, The Bradley IFV, The striker isn't meant to go up against Armored vehicles like the Abrams, or the T-90. It's designed to get in , mess the enemy up, and get out. It's also for Recon, a role Wheeled (called Armored Cars) have filled since World War I. Armored Cars like The German SD.Kfz. 234 Puma and the American M8 Greyhound.

They build these in my home town, found memories of seeing these on the road. Like when I had one behind me and was staring down the barrel while waiting for the light to turn green lol

Ironic, the M1128 is hands-down the least shitty Stryker. It’s the only one in the family with really any battlefield utility, every other Stryker loses a 1 v. 1 with fucking BRDMs.

Back in ontario canada they manufactured these bad boys and other wheeled armored vehicles near my hometown everyone was so proud of their work, and their company. We would see them almost weekly rolling down the road on a flat bed being shipped. It was pretty cool

Wow...great footage and well compiled. Very informative. Thank you!

I remember when the Stryker was first being put into use and the Military Channel was putting out blatantly ridiculous claims about how it was such an awesome super-tank that was so better much better than anything that had come before it.

Hopefully the newly selected General Dynamics Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF "Not-a-light-tank" light tank) will fill the gap and live up to it's promise better than the MGS did. At least it was built from the ground up as a tracked 105mm armored fighting vehicle, not a vehicle that found itself with a 105mm slapped on top after the fact like the MGS lol

It might not be practical, or super safe, but it’s cool. Also, unrelated, I loved running m1128 in battlefield 3. Mapping enemy tanks from spawn was super satisfying.

I served on the M109 Paladen back in the late 90s and it's nice see this upgrade

In the Canadian military we had a six-wheel drive vehicle called a cougar that had a tank turret on it and it was garbage as well. Then we switched to the lav 3 and that thing was great

The Stryker was made after that the pentagon seen how well the Italian Centauro 1 performed in Iraq at first and the in Afghanistan after (the US Army Itself leased 16 Centauro 1 to train their crews to wheeled AFV during the Stryker pre-production period). As platform is great for a fast guerrilla situation, and they are made purely for Reconnaissance, with the secondary role of MBT hunter, that are the roles both the Stryker and the Italian Centauro do best (the Italian Centauro now do a better job than the Stryker as MBT hunter, seen their Centauro 2 armed with a 120mm cannon). But ofcourse in an hard mountain environment you need a tracked MBT.

I’ve spent alot of time in strykers. I love the vehicle, I feel secure in it on infil. Never used the weapon system this is talking about though.

"Nobody loves the Stryker" Shows some of the coolest footage, beautiful gun sounds. I think it is a very sexy vehicle.

Also the complicated and always failing suspension requirements due to the height needs to fit in a cargo aircraft. It always is breaking leaving all variants of the vehicle in the motor pool.

I like it. The only thing I don't like is limited storage space for the 105 ammo. Certainly the 105 would be a good Infantry killer in the direct and indirect fire mode, though this might be redundant and too expensive.

As many have also mentioned it’s not intended to face modern armor head on. It’s a mobile gun platform with medium combat ability that is better suited to flanking groups and guerrilla style shoot and scoot with infantry support ability….

Channels like this can make the army secrets open and vulnerable to their enemies too

These were very comfortable to ride in. Compared to a Bradly

Ukr's BTR-4s seem to be pretty useful and have torn up a fair # of Rus tanks. 35mm and 50mm Bushmasters w/airburst could do even more you'd think.

was always a fan of these eight-wheelers as support platform!

This thing was meant to give the light infantry units some firepower until air support could come in not fight in tank battles like they some how expect it too with not enough Armour and an underpowered cannon, the 105 cannon would work great against other vehicles in its class such as the bmp's

Fun backyard vehicle for sure!

MSHORAD is a strong configuration for the Stryker. I wish we'd sell some to Taiwan as it looks to be a good fit for thier specific situation.

The vehicle has a lot of potential. If can move very fast and still keep aim and shoot accurately then you have a deadly beast on your hands.

Appearance wise the mgs looks badass. I believe in future it can make a comeback in some shape or form. Through my pov they just rushed the production process. I see it as a good learning opportunity on what not to do and what to do on applying a 105 mm gun on a six-eight wheel vehicle.

How long has the Army been planning to add energy weapons on vehicles? I remember seeing them on pamphlets going as far back as the 90s. It never happens.

This is a possible solution to the mobility issue the Howitzer faces. It might make the Excalibur shell more effective. Just a thought.

My country (Bulgaria) is considering the purhcasing of 200 Strykers to (finally) renovate and reform the army's old soviet IFVs. I hope that they will pick some numbers of the M1128 and also order more from the M1296 Dragoon variant. That would be amazing!

Look at the French AMX 10. An improved version of that will fulfil this role as it has the same 105mm gun

In 2006 when my FT Knox group graduated basic and AIT for MOS 19K, half of those who went active duty were taken to Alaska to train on the Stryker were the rest of us went to Abrams. Everybody know from then has absolutely hated the Stryker lol. I was getting messages an emails almost instantly from those who went to Alaska just saying they wanted to be on Abrams an wish they knew they would have been taken to be dumped in Alaska haha

Not knowing the issues with armour; internal a/c; and difficulties in crew escape, as a no-nothing Brit, the one issue I always saw was the recoil: it looked bad on the outside, so I can't imagine being bounced around on the inside, especially with seat belts not supplied ... If the turret is a completely sealed unit, that is only open to rearm, my thought is reduce the caliber of the gun to 30x 113, but keep the barrel length ... Yes, that means essentially squeezing a GAU-8 Avenger into the turret, but just imagine a 6X6, with selective six wheel drive, weeled vehicle that is - just - air mobile, with a 'baby' Avenger mounted in the turret, with twin drums (one for live rounds, second for empty cases, or just twin drums, and spit the casings out the back, just as the Apache helicopter drops its spent casings ... ), it won't have the familiar _brrrttttt_ of the A-10, but with still the same punch; moreso, depending on barrel length, faster twist rate, and triple-based propellant ... Granted even _that_ may still not be an anti-tank weapon, but it need not be. The German tiny Wiesel tank is proven to be tiny, but mighty. You just need enough to _disable_ the lead and rear tanks, and then, scuttle out of there, leaving the convoy stuck, and vulnerable for harder hitting attacks ... If they want such a thing as a tank destroyer, then build a heavier version, 8x8, with selective 8 wheel drive, featuring a much heavier turret with a 105mm gun, but with a feed system from a armoured 'tank' at the back. Place the power pack in the heavily armoured slope section in the front, with exhaust both sides, between the middle of two sets of four wheels, and air intake at the back. The crew is in a armoured box in the middle (with disguised louvres, as engine intakes, of the doors on both sides). With modern optics, line of sight vision isn't necessary, although having a backup, optical path, of lenses and mirrors, won't hurt. Crew would be four; driver, gunner, secondary gunner (for twin, coaxial .50BMG, and a 7.62, on top, and also as an emergency loader), and crew commander. Due to obvious limitations on the chassis, the arc of fire can only be ±45⁰ fore, and aft.(so essentially 90⁰ sweep) in direct fire. Not sure the angle of indirect fire, though, That's a - very - rough sketch out of my head, and both God and the Devil is in the details, especially the feed mechanism (perhaps incorporate a 5 round 'magazine' in the turret), but I'm sure brighter minds than me can figure it out ... [Random thought is random, but, with the 8x8 concept, instead of just the usual tank rounds, a nearly indistinguishable varient uses a smaller Brimstone/Hellfire missile down the smooth bore ... something that looks like a gun-platform armoured vehicle, but is a disguised missile launcher ...]

I wouldn't mind having one in my backyard. It looks like a do it all vehicle and I like that.

it can be fitted with many diff turrets & guns, a very nice piece of equipment!

"Alright so you got this awesome gun that can punch a hole through modern armor, right?" "Well actually no, it isn't good at that." "Oh, ok. Well at least you probably have almost impenetrable armor yourself so you can survive a hit from someone else with a big gun?" "Umm, no, but it's lightweight." "Oh, ok, cool. So it's super lightweight you probably are very tactically mobile and can go almost anywhere?" "Yep, anywhere there's roads."

Stryker? I hardly knew her!!!

Aside of maintenance 👀 looks like a good platform

8x8 fast gun platforms are a great idea. But it needs to be a common chassis with an amphibious APC that can perform multiple roles. And it needs a 90mm high velocity gun.

120 MM mortar in the crew compartment Just as lethal, more so to armor as it's coming down on weakest part the top. Also reduces vehicle need for armor, as it won't be line of sight. Include drones for fire correction. If you could fit a 120 and 60 mm save the 120 rounds for BIG problems, use the more plentiful 60 for infantry and tops APC'etc

guys i knew in 1st Cav Ft Hood that were in iraq said these striker units got smoked extremely bad by small arms and light munitions. mortars can take these things out and even mortar IEDs took out alot of them samarra being the battle that sealed their pos fate. crew casualties made them death traps

I really appreciate the way it just farts an empty shell out the back after firing.

This Stryker vehicle shoots the same 105 mm round that the M60 A1 tank shot that I use to be a tank crewman on in the Marine Corps in the 80s.

BRING BACK THE "THING"! Automate the M-50 ONTOS or something like it.

It's better off with a autocannon and two built in tow missiles or javelins like the Bradley to kill tanks.

I saw some of these heading down I-5 years ago along with regular Strykers.

30mm is perfectly adequate even against tanks. Battles in Mariupol showed it well. 105mm looks awesome.. but is just overkill. Would be like fitting a single 16" gun to coastal defence destroyer.

Russia has a counter vehicle to this: the wild borsch which carries a shortened 175 mm naval gun, runs on pure vodka, and has no exterior or interior lighting to reduce night time detection.

Well surprise surprise, the LAV III it was based on had it right to use an autocannon. Nice that you've got the Bushmaster II though, really worth the wait and expense to get there, right? Why yes, I am Canadian. How could you tell?

I mean in the Malaysia Army we had this 6x6 armoured fire support vehicles, comes with a 90mm turrets we had quite a number of them, and been in services for 30 years, we knew it could never be a light tank, but the 90mm firepower is not something you can get on every APC's, we kept it's job scope and it doing just fine, that's why it remain in service for 30 years till we get the new 8x8 AV8 with 30mm cannon.

The Stryker program did what it was supposed to, it got General Shinseki that sweet second career at General Dynamics.

I never understood why they went with a 105mm cannon in the first place. They could have gone with a GAU series auto-cannon and a modular missle pod system (AtG or AA) to make it more flexible. The cannon would only be the last line of defense or a close range weapon system for up close infantry support. Where a drone with a TAG on it could provide laser guided munitions to enemy armor and scout out enemy positions if a UAV was not on station to provide support.

people wont hate it once its proved itself in combat. Ukraine seems like a good battleground for the M1128, what Ukraine needs is good mobile firepower so it can be deployed in one area then move to provide support for another area in a relatively low amount of time compared to how long it would take for tanks to move from area to area

The thing needs an absolute overhaul to make it a viable system, because what they essentially did was slap a 105mm turret on a regular stryker and called it a day (yes, I know some of the internal configuration was changed, but that was mostly for ammo storage). The problem is, with the current frame and suspension system, that gun actively tries to kill the Stryker, wreaking havoc on the suspension system (which can, in fact, be killed on the first shot of the 105mm gun), the engine (due largely to getting jostled around so much, as a secondary effect of the suspension system being overtaxed or just outright killed) and the frame getting warped. So they need a redesign to the frame, the suspension, and the engine mounting system, after that, should be alright. Not the best thing in the world, but good enough to consistently get the job it was intended for done.

I liked the video - for airing all of the problems with this platform.

I never understood why theArmy didn’t look at the LAV

I think the platform would be better suited to being a missile launch platform that can be used alongside special operations, drones and direct targeting systems.

I don't think they are primarily meant to engage tanks, more for infantry support

I seem to remember a tank destroyer called Jagtiger in WW2, which easily were destroyed and labeled a failure. You would think the army would remember projects like the Jagtiger.

Somewhere there are blueprints for the 105mm Recoilless Rifle. I always wondered why the Army didn’t install those instead.

Oh please. We never had ACs in the M1A1 tanks in Iraq 2004. Our cooling vests were in boxes in the motor pool during the deployment. We discovered them during a draw down detail after most of the unit went to other units.

We had some attached to us in Operation Dragon strike I think it was called. The last Troop surge in Afghanistan 2010. We predominately used them as bunker buster units. Taking fire from that woodline or that building, bam send a 105 at them. In this role It worked extremely well imo.

I thought the Mobile land vehicle or whatever it's called already won this contract and is going into testing in production in the near future?

Lots of pics of it firing on Range 10, Yakima Firing Center.. The M68 cannon is still and effective maingun..

i love the look and idea of this thing. sad that they pushed it into service without giving it the shakedown

Everything seems not to be the fault of the gun. Everybody else has light tanks / tank destroyers like the Italian Centauro. If the US army doesn’t find it useful, that’s their problem. Just like they didn’t think they needed armored humvees or wheeled armor at all.

Great platform. But yeah, 105mm way too big.

I like the idea that they implemented to change the the the turret.

I love the Stryker I know it has its fair share of problems but idk I just love it. It’s my favourite armoured vehicle

send them to Ukraine

Waste of tax payer's money. $5 Million buys close to 15 Javelin manpads that can kill 15 of these steel coffins. Tanks and armor belong in the 80's. Now smart missiles and UAVs rule the battlefield

The Bradley was highly effective against tanks, wouldn't fitting Bradley turrets with TOW missiles to Stryker chassis or similar capability with an extended range Javilin/30 mm cannon combo.

It should’ve send the strker to Ukraine to combat enemy tanks from a distance for defense

Send them to Ukraine then

I could use one of those just to get to work in the morn!!

I was a M1128 MGS commander in OIF 2007 during the surge. If you would like to ask a question just ask.

Send it Ukraine

Its needs from Ukraine

Funny that in Warzone2100 RTS game, my entire army ended up being based on fast mobile tanks - a tank cannon on top of hovercraft, its fast, carries a punch but weak in armor. In that game you could design your own tanks by combining parts. Heavy armored tanks were too slow to get to the action on the other side of the map. Before the heavy's get there, the battle would be already lost. So I had to switch to mobile tanks for fast reinforcements, to keep the pressure on the enemy. Their weak armor was the acceptable disadvantage to gain victory.